1. Con must ask Pro ten questions in Round 1 and another ten in Round 2. These questions can only have a possible answer of: yes, no, maybe, or sometimes.
2. With Con's questions, he/she will try to find clues as to what object Pro has in mind.
3. In Rounds 2 and 3, Pro will answer Con's questions with a yes, no, maybe, sometimes, or an explanation to clarify the response.
4. In Round 3, Con will guess what object that Pro had in mind.
5. In Round 4, Pro will reveal the object that he was thinking of. If Con was correct in his/her guess, Con automatically wins the debate. However, if Con was incorrect with the guess, Con will have Round 4 to try and point out if Pro either answered a question that was contradictory with the object in mind or if Pro inaccurately answered a question.
6. In Round 5, Pro will defend himself. If Con has accused Pro of the above, Pro will be able to counteract Con's arguments and attempt to justify his claims.
7. In Round 5, Con can either give up or try to convince the readers that Pro has contradicted an answer with the object in mind.
8. If Con guesses the object correctly, Con automatically wins.
9. If Con guesses the object incorrectly but shows Pro to be contradictory in the answers to the questions, Con wins.
10. If Con concedes or does not prove that Pro was inaccurate or contradictory, then Pro wins.
11. If Con does not provide the exact number of questions when obligated, Con automatically loses.
12. For every time Pro answers "maybe," Con can ask an additional question that will take the place of the prior question.
13. Only severe contradictions are considered. People may have different interpretations of a question.
*P.S. The object that Pro has in his mind cannot change throughout the debate. Remember, Pro can only think of an object*

object- anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. For this debate, humans and animals will not count; Pro must think of an inanimate object.

Yes; although the object can be found outdoors, it is more commonly found indoors.

"2. Is the object something that can fit into a standard backpack without rendering the backpack unable to zip shut, and while still remaining intact?"

Most of the time, the object is something that cannot fit into a standard backpack without rendering the backpack unable to zip shut, and while still remaining intact. There are exceptions, but you can conclude that the answer to this question is "no."

"3. Is the object something that could, as a whole, be manipulated with only human strength? (Broken, smashed, molded, etc.)"

Yes; the object is something that could, as a whole, be manipulated with only human strength.

"4. Is the object normally capable of storing items within itself?"

No.

"5. Is the object normally capable of storing people within itself?"

No.

"6. Does the object use electricity?"

No.

"7. Is the object ever used as food on a relatively common basis?"

No.

"8. Does the object have green coloring on any part of it's surface?"

It could, but not necessarily. The answer to this can be concluded as "some times."

I thank my opponent for the excellent challenge, however I believe I have reason to continue the debate.
It seems that my opponent has presented some faulty information about the object being described.

----- False Claims -----

There are two claims that stand out to me.

1. My opponent claims that the object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target.

2. My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart and Target, the majority of these types of objects sell for no more than fifty dollars.

We can combine these two statements to form a single one.

Combined:
My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart or Target, the majority of table legs can be bought for under or exactly fifty dollars.

That 'new' claim might look somewhat unchanged at a first glance, but the last part is extremely important to my refutation.

If we didn't have the first claim, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the object could be purchased at or under fifty dollars because we wouldn't know that the object was actually for sale in the first place- but we do.

In order for him to make these two claims, he must have either,

Possibility 1. Assumed that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that even at 99% of the price, the table legs wouldn't exceed fifty dollars.

Doesn't work because: The majority of tables aren't at or under that price. [1] [2]

Possibility 2. Known the cost of an individual table leg, regardless of whether or not they are sold independently.

Doesn't work because: In order for you to know the price that Target would hypothetically sell each part of the table for, the individual part would have to be for sale in the first place- which it isn't. [3] [4]

----- Closing -----

Before handing it over to my opponent, I'd like to quote one of the rules established in Round 1.

"9. If Con guesses the object incorrectly but shows Pro to be contradictory in the answers to the questions, Con wins."

"It seems that my opponent has presented some faulty information about the object being described."

I do not believe that I have presented any faulty information about the object being described. However, I shall refute your points.

"1. My opponent claims that the object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target."

The object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target. Both of these stores sell tables, and the price of a table leg is included with the entire price of the table itself.

"2. My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart and Target, the majority of these types of objects sell for no more than fifty dollars."

This is true. When I stated that my object was a table leg, I meant that the object is only one table leg. (Pretty self-explanatory) Thus, at least where I am from, most table legs individually sell for less than fifty dollars when calculating everything included with purchasing a complete table.

"My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart or Target, the majority of table legs can be bought for under or exactly fifty dollars."

This is true, and I have already affirmed this. Remember that I am only speaking of one table leg, because I am only speaking of one object.

"That 'new' claim might look somewhat unchanged at a first glance, but the last part is extremely important to my refutation."

I understand. However, I have already refuted both parts.

"If we didn't have the first claim, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the object could be purchased at or under fifty dollars because we wouldn't know that the object was actually for sale in the first place- but we do."

I have already affirmed that tables, and, consequently, table legs, are sold at both Wal-Mart and Target.

"Possibility 1. Assumed that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that even at 99% of the price, the table legs wouldn't exceed fifty dollars.

Doesn't work because: The majority of tables aren't at or under that price. [1] [2]"

I believe that my opponent is confused. Remember, the object is a single table leg. I do not have to assume that a majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that an individual table leg does not exceed fifty dollars. If you look at my opponent's first source, you can see that every single item listed on that page is under two hundred dollars (excluding one item). I bring up the term "two hundred dollars" because we can safely assume that the tables have four legs, and if each table leg can be at a maximum price of fifty dollars, then the table would be at least two hundred dollars. Since none of the tables (excluding one) exceed two hundred dollars, and by the fact that there is more to a table than just four table legs, we can assume that a table leg is under the price of fifty dollars (also substantiated by my opponent's source).

My opponent's second source includes many sporting tables (such as ping pong tables, hockey tables, etc.) that range from prices of several hundreds of dollars to even over a thousand dollars. However, my opponent must admit that most of the cost of these tables comes from such material as black tops, nets, steel supports, casters, pads, additional protection, durability for multiple function, play and storage positions, automatic scorers, specific surfaces, various accessories, balls, pucks, etc. Essentially, I gave my best guess at reasonably concluding whether or not a single table leg is worth fifty dollars or not. Mostly from what I have personally seen, as well as from my opponent's first source and questionability of his second, it is pretty clear that my affirmation of a table leg that costs fifty dollars maximum is reasonable.

My opponent must remember the rule, "13. Only severe contradictions are considered. People may have different interpretations of a question." My opponent's first source actually helped my argument, and his second is a little faulty in trying to prove his point.

"In order for him to make these two claims, he must have either ..."

I have already made my point for the first possibility, but I shall make one more point out of my opponent's argument in the second possibility.

If you look at my opponent's third source, most of the items on the webpage are less than two hundred dollars, which I have already discussed to prove my point. Several of the items over two hundred dollars are sets that include chairs and the like, so we can't assume that those legs are priced individually at over fifty dollars. One item priced over two hundred dollars is a mere lamp that obviously doesn't include table legs.

I am completely ignoring my opponent's second possibility because he stated that all I have to do is affirm the first possibility or the second. I have already affirmed the first, but I made a comment about the third source that backed up my earlier claims.

The truth is, my opponent did not show Pro to be contradictory in the answers to his questions.

This is my last round of refutation, so I will be unable to respond to my opponent. I have proven that I have not been contradictory, and I have also refuted three of my opponent's sources.

.
.
.
.
.
.
1.
"The object can be purchased from [T/WM]. Both of these stores sell tables, and the price of a table leg is included with the entire price of the table itself."
My opponent has shown that one claim can probably stand by itself. However, this is irrelevant because my argument has always been that they cannot exist at the same time (Hence why I combined them). The coexistence of these claims needs to be established since we are describing the same object.

2.
"This is true. When I stated that my object was a table leg, I meant that the object is only one table leg. (Pretty self-explanatory) Thus, at least where I am from, most table legs individually sell for less than fifty dollars when calculating everything included with purchasing a complete table."

First off, my opponent now describes the object as not just, "a table leg", but, "only a table leg". If the object is truely -only- one table leg, then the answer to, "Do these stores sell the object?" should have been, "No." Buying four table legs and a flat piece of wood is hardly buying -only- a table leg.
Also, pro doesn't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I've always been speaking of individual table legs. When I use the term majority ("The majority of table legs are under that price"), I'm reffering to the group of independent table legs, examined individually. For instance, the "majority" of the candy bars on that shelf over there are probably no more than a dollar. If my opponent thought I was using 'majority' to describe the price of the entire mass, then why did he answer, "No" when I asked him if the majority of these objects at Target and Wal-Mart sell for more than fifty dollars?
The original question I asked was whether or not the object itself sold at those stores for under that price. I'll refute my opponent's main argument in response number five.

3.
"This is true, and I have already affirmed this. Remember that I am only speaking of one table leg, because I am only speaking of one object."

Once again my opponent misinterprets my use of the term majority. I realize that we are speaking of only one object, but in order to decide how many of these 'one objects' fit the answer you gave me, they need to be analyzed independently and then sorted into the majority and non-majority groups. I'm not trying to bundle the prices of fifty-one percent of the objects together as my opponent seems to think.

4.
"I understand. However, I have already refuted both parts."

Pro argues that he has already refuted both claims. My opponent might be able to defend each claim individually as if the other doesn't exist, but they cannot coexist without contradiction- which was my point. Both need to be taken into consideration simultaneously because they are describing the same thing. Together they cannot work, as I've shown before, and will show again.

5.
"I believe that my opponent is confused. Remember, the object is a single table leg. I do not have to assume that a majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that an individual table leg does not exceed fifty dollars. If you look at my opponent's first source, you can see that every single item listed on that page is under two hundred dollars (excluding one item). I bring up the term "two hundred dollars" because we can safely assume that the tables have four legs, and if each table leg can be at a maximum price of fifty dollars, then the table would be at least two hundred dollars. Since none of the tables (excluding one) exceed two hundred dollars, and by the fact that there is more to a table than just four table legs, we can assume that a table leg is under the price of fifty dollars (also substantiated by my opponent's source)."

Here, I believe my opponent makes their strongest argument. I would urge readers not to discount my response before reading it carefully, however, because I have an adequate refutation more so than just, "You can't prove it!"
Once again, my opponent misinterprets my usage of a certain term, which strikes me as peculiar given that he seemed to understand my usage of the word 'majority' during the questioning phase. I'm going to move on at this point, though, as I assume the reader has gotten the idea by now.
My opponent makes the claim that he does not have to assume that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to -guarantee- than an individual table leg does not exceed that price. Don't be fooled- he does some simple math that would seem to refute my point, but there's one major flaw. I didn't just ask what the price of a table leg was. I asked if most table legs were able to be purchased for a certain price. The only way to have Wal-Mart or Target sell you a table leg, and thus purchase the object (Part of the requirement of my question), would be to buy an entire table. Thus, the table leg is not able to be purchased for fifty dollars or under. In order to -purchase- the table leg, you need to pay the full price of the table. This is why I said that the majority of tables would need to be at or under fifty dollars. My opponent's math is irrelevant. Once again, I asked if the object usually sells for more than fifty dollars. I can't stress this enough. Given that you -have- to buy a table to buy a table leg (Keyword, buy), my source backs me up after all.

6.
"My opponent's second source includes many sporting tables [...] that range from prices of several hundreds of dollars to even over a thousand dollars. However, my opponent must admit that most of the cost of these tables comes from such material as black tops, nets, steel supports, casters, pads, additional protection, durability for multiple function, play and storage positions, automatic scorers, [...] etc. Essentially, I gave my best guess at reasonably concluding whether or not a single table leg is worth fifty dollars or not. Mostly from what I have personally seen, as well as from my opponent's first source and questionability of his second, it is pretty clear that my affirmation of a table leg that costs fifty dollars max is reasonable."

The same argument from above can be applied here. The only way to actually -purchase- a table leg would be to buy a table. I asked if [T/WM] would sell the object to me at that price. They don't. These stores only sell table legs to customers through tables. Most tables at that store are not at or under fifty dollars, thus you cannot buy a table leg for that price. Refuted.

7.
"My opponent must remember the rule, "13[....]" My opponent's first source actually helped my argument, and his second is a little faulty in trying to prove his point."

Agreed. I would ask my opponent to not discredit my objections as petty critique, as I find these to be critical to the debate. I have also shown that both of my sources support me.

8.
"If you look at my opponent's third source, most of the items on the webpage are less than two hundred dollars, which I have already discussed to prove my point. Several of the items over two hundred dollars are sets that include chairs and the like, so we can't assume that those legs are priced individually at over fifty dollars. One item priced over two hundred dollars is a mere lamp that obviously doesn't include table legs."

My previous argument about price to -purchase- is extended.

9.
"The truth is, my opponent did not show Pro to be contradictory [...]"

I disagree, and have supported my position as such. Given my opponents stance, he should have answered "Yes" to the question, "Do the majority of these items sell for more than fifty dollars?" My response to number five completely eliminates my opponents argument.

----- Closing -----

I want to thank any readers for taking the time to read this. I have shown Pro's answers to be contradictory and urge readers to vote Con given the rules of the debate.

It is assumed that a table leg's cost is factored into a table's entire cost at Wal-Mart. Obviously, if you buy a table, then you are also paying for a table leg (because the table leg is included with the price of the table).